Pharmacological Manipulation of Shoaling Behavior in Zebrafish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The zebrafish has been a favorite of developmental biologists and geneticists for decades, however, recently, it has gained popularity among behavior researchers too. The reason for the popularity of this species is that while it is a simple vertebrate, it possesses numerous features that make it translationally relevant. Objective: Social interaction is an essential component of human as well as zebrafish behavior; yet, the biological mechanisms underlying social behavior and its dysfunction remain poorly understood in both species. This review focuses on pharmacological manipulation of social behavior in zebrafish, studies where the ultimate goal is to understand the psychopharmacology of human behavior. Methods: We focused specifically on quantification of social interaction, specifically shoaling, in zebrafish, and compared it to rodent literature where appropriate. If no social studies exist for specific classes of compounds in zebrafish or if other behaviors may help with interpretation of social responses, we also highlighted non-social behaviors (locomotion, anxiety, etc). Results: We discussed findings on the effect of exposure of zebrafish to alcohol, psychostimulants, depressants and other drugs of abuse. Comparison of studies that have quantified and manipulated zebrafish social behavior of either single zebrafish or groups of zebrafish high-light both growth and gaps in this rapidly evolving field. Conclusion: Although new in psychopharmacology research, the zebrafish will be an important tool with which analysis and modeling of human social behavior and disorders involving social abnormalities including Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, Autism spectrum disorders, and Schizophrenia may be facilitated. Keywords: Zebrafish, social behavior, alcohol, psychostimulants, antidepressants, anxiolytics, shoaling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".